Yeah that doesn’t even vaguely resemble what I’m saying.

Valve isn’t regulating your hardware and they aren’t forcing anybody to do anything.

Valve is not a bully here. They have a contract saying if you sell your product with me you can’t sell it someplace else cheaper just to use me for marketing and delivery.

Apple says you have to pay me to even have the right to sell your product and you can only sell it through me. If you sell it someplace else I want to cut of that too.

Google just keeps changing the nature of what you’re allowed to do with your own stuff and they take a cut.

If you feel bullied by Valve or some developer feels bullied by valve then you have a victim complex.

There are other marketplaces to steam. Steam doesn’t prevent you from installing from sources outside of steam. Steam doesn’t regulate your hardware or how you use it. If you want to sell on steam you can still sell elsewhere but it has to be the same price.

This means if you go to steam to find out about a game and then decide to buy it from the manufacturer’s website the manufacturer makes more money because they don’t have to give Valve a cut, and Valve might even authorize you to activate that product on steam.

Expecting valve to offer their marketing and delivery systems without any incentive for you to sell products through it would defeat the purpose of their platform.

Compare that to the other two chuckle fuckers in this mix:

Apple maintains an exclusive platform. Apple has taken specific steps to prevent people from installing software from sources that have not paid them for permission to make software for the hardware you rent from them.

Google maintains an exclusive platform. Google has taken specific steps to prevent people from installing from sources that have not paid them for permission to make software for the hardware you bought from third party vendors and manufacturers.
The ever shrinking accommodation to installing third-party software on your purchased hardware is anti-competitive, and defeats consumer choice.

A tremendous amount of money has been invested to ensure that it is.

Microsoft was trying to build something they could sell for practical reasons as a cheaper alternative to land based data centers. For that purpose it is not cost effective.

Peter Thiel is trying to build something that will not be subject to laws so he can continue to develop horrors beyond human comprehension. For that use case it is possibly very cost effective.

You can’t build a rule from exceptions.

There are those few circumstances of uniquely certain guilt when you probably could make a very breathy argument in favor of executing people, but that is not something that can be easily codified into law and the legal fiction of “beyond a reasonable doubt” has already been reliably subverted in … Every country that currently has jury trials.

I love the idea that evil people get their comeuppance. I’m not so much a fan of giving the state or whatever perfectly ideal synergy of state and people exists in the utopic future the ability to murder without consequence.

To me it seems fairly obvious that that’s bad and that the entity capable of doing it justly is not within the capacity of current human culture to produce.

Unless the state is infallible, never making a mistake in or out of court, AND it is literally impossible to rehabilitate the offender, AND It requires fewer resources to execute a person then to keep them alive, then and only then is it not profanely hideous to sanction state murder.

Capital punishment is a barbaric practice that can not be justified by hiding it behind a jury.

This one policy is better in this extremely superficial description.

Neither country has workers rights on par with Europe for example.

Just because the US and Israel have decided to be an axis of evil doesn’t mean that the Iranian government is all of the sudden good guys.

The Iranian people are victims and all of this. They did try democracy and we bombed them for it. Their government is not run by good people and that is also our fault.

Good intentions without the spirit of cooperation or respect for consent is still evil.

The main problem with all of these internet surveillance tools being marketed as ways to protect children is that people are engaging with them on that basis.

As far as I’m concerned they haven’t done anything to establish that they actually intend to protect children or that this is a reasonable way to do it. This seems like a solution to a different problem that ignores all of the problems it creates.

Parents should be responsible for their children. A random website creator shouldn’t have to be responsible for your children.

Websites aren’t stores where people walk in off of a public street. They are services that people reach out to and engage with specifically and intentionally. If we can address the non-consensual non-intentionality part of internet tracking and surveillance a lot of this stuff goes away. So maybe rather than regulating the website to protect your children we should be regulating the website to protect consent.

In several different ways. The trick is to attack the problem of excessive wealth accumulation by making the system feed more aggressively on accumulated wealth.

A wealth tax is important to prevent the excess accumulation of capital. Money is only really working if it’s in motion. Once it stops moving it stops adding value to the economy which is fine sometimes and in small amounts.

Tax disuse. Vacant real estate should be taxed extra. If they don’t want it taxed it should be actively used in a non-extractive way. This means low impact agriculture, preservation, or occupancy not mining, dumping or logging.

Tax non-resident ownership. You can own as many houses as you want but each additional one beyond your primary residence is going to incur a scaling tax penalty. Two probably would be manageable Three would be difficult once you get to four and five houses you’re going to find it extremely difficult to make any money. And the scaling tax penalty would apply to the most expensive one first.

If they’re extracting resources from it or doing heavy agriculture they should be paying a premium and not externalizing wastes. They could be taxed to ensure compliance and enforcement is adequate. They should also be taxed in advance to fund potential cleanup of any toxic or environmental hazards. The money can be held in escrow but it needs to not be held by the same people who have a financial incentive to cut corners.

See I don’t actually believe the problem is rich people or income inequality broadly it’s the runaway effect of the accumulation of wealth in the absence of any kind of functional theory about how money is supposed to actually work in the economy.

There are people that are going to just work like crazy people and they will in any fair system acquire more resources than most other people.

I think in a fair system the people who are likely to end up with more resources would look very different than the people who end up with more resources in our systems.

Something people don’t often understand about American dollars and American taxes is that the function of the government’s tax policy is not to pay its bills. Our government doesn’t need taxes to pay its bills. The function of the government collecting taxes is to delete money from the system.
They need to be deleting money from the places where there’s too much of it. Otherwise that money crowds out legitimate money that is the representative of economic value produced through labor. If labor has no voice, then the economy stops functioning.

But it’s 8 gigs of RAM on a Mac so It will perform like a Chromebook with 4 gigs of RAM.

I was permabanned from /r/politics for saying “pretty soon it’s not just going to be red hats talking about second amendment solutions” in response to the police walking down the streets of Minneapolis shooting at houses during the George Floyd protests.

Permanently banned from politics, reason: advocating violence

Tried to appeal by pointing at a number of other comments that talk about second amendment solutions and was just sent a copy of the rules from the sidebar in a direct message from a mod.

I don’t think they would have been called the Epstein files though. It probably would have been called the Franklin files. All of this stuff seems like Ben Franklin’s jam.

No I don’t think Ben Franklin would have done it for espionage or spying purposes I think he would have just done it for the love of the game.

You’re just not thinking about all of the car companies that would benefit from having so many more cars to sell!

They’re not being trained to be elite troops the way that people mythologize the IDF who somehow managed to miss all of the warnings about October the 7th and can’t tell the difference between a baby and a bomb.

They’re being trained to be the enforcers of apartheid. Racistly motivated government shock troops don’t have to be competent or capable they just have to be cruel and follow orders.

Good thing I didn’t bring up spying at all or you might have a point that somehow speaks to a thing I said.

What the bill does include is a wish list of stupid things you could only want if you didn’t understand the technology.

It’s also the thin end of the wedge meant to create a context for an excuse to further restrict these devices.

Most 3D printers run software that is smaller than most 3D prints.

I’m going to say that another couple of different ways in case you didn’t understand it, The software that runs on these devices is measured in the hundreds of kilobytes. A 2-in wide Batman symbol with no flourishes or extra details is going to be 10 to 30 times that size. There’s not even enough memory on the device to hold the entire print so it reads the instructions on how to make it one line at a time.

Those instructions are written in G-Code and g code is older than even the concept of most computer peripherals. G-Code can be written by hand, and is a technology older than computer monitors, digital audio, the mouse, or The indicator light.

So you want to add more computer to a device than the device normally costs so that it can run software that no one has written or knows how to write so it can detect shapes based on their future intended usage to prevent people from using their highly customizable home manufacturing device to Make single use firearms in a country that already has more guns than people…

There is no algorithm for that. That’s just technobabble. In order to detect if somebody is trying to print any specific shape you’re going to need software that can look for that shape in an arbitrary cloud of point data. That software does not exist.

No one has developed that kind of software and in order to develop it would require a tremendous amount of research and development. Who pays for that?

Now let’s say you were the company who did that research and development Do you build the cost of developing this anti-product into a line of products that you will sell? What’s the market for that product? If you sold the printer with no chip at all are you exempt from that requirement?

Will a device that has to include the additional cost that comes with all of the additional needed computer hardware, software development, and anticircumvention technology be in any way competitive on the market against models that don’t include these additional unnecessary expenses?

How long will people be allowed to make aftermarket modifications to their 3D printer if the aftermarket modifications don’t also include the additional computer hardware needed to run software that could arbitrarily detect gun parts in 3D printed designs?

I don’t think you understand how completely insane and unworkable a plan like this is because you’re comparing 3D printers to 2D printers. That’s a little bit like comparing paint by numbers to scratch and sniff.

Tell me how many handmade 2D printers are out there with this restriction?

How many 2D printer building kits have you seen online?

Ever seen open source sold with censorship built in? How would that work?